Welcome to the Forum Archive!

Years of conversation fill a ton of digital pages, and we've kept all of it accessible to browse or copy over. Whether you're looking for reveal articles for older champions, or the first time that Rammus rolled into an "OK" thread, or anything in between, you can find it here. When you're finished, check out the boards to join in the latest League of Legends discussions.

[Suggestion] Matchmaking Queues

Reasoning
I understand Riot has a commitment to make game queues as short as possible. I think that it's a great philosophy, but it frustrates me when game after game, I have a feeder/horrible player on my team. For example, my last game I was Ashe laning with Mundo against a Nunu and Katarina. We destroyed them in the bottom late, but in mid there was the enemy Jax versus Katarina. Our Kat got ganked over and over and we called MIA over and over, and then the game got out of control. We started telling our Kat to run away when we call MIA, but she decided to sit at the shop and do nothing. This is just one example of many times something like this has happened.

The suggestion
To remedy this problem, I wish there was an option to have a closer-matched game in terms of skill. Whether the metric is win/loss or K/D doesn't really matter, as long as it's constructive. Over time the two should correlate the same. What I WANT is to have a LONGER wait time so that I DON'T get matched with people who don't speak English or don't know what MIA means. So, please include an option to get a better game. Options like similar region, Win/loss, K/D, favorite animal, etc. would be great. Yeah, throw up a message saying the queue will be longer. If people don't want a long queue, then they won't use it.

The system would be for people who have over 100 games played, or maybe only level 30 players. This way, the sample size of their wins/losses can be understood and not completely random. After a certain number of games the relative 'skill' level can be seen from the win/loss ratio. From this ratio of a large sample size, the person cannot possibly be carried through all of their games by better players such that their win/loss ratio is very high. In addition, the player cannot have gotten 'lucky' and played with similarly matched players throughout his/her career.

Yes, the community will be split where a certain proportion will select the 'better' game types, but I believe that the population of the game is large enough such that those selecting a quick match will not see a large difference in wait times. Already I get queue times between 1 second and 1:45.

TL;DR The current system leads to anti-fun when leavers/bad players can, and will get matched with you as the last member of your team. Let us have options to set tighter differences in region/skill/whatever.

Listen, I think having a win/loss thing would actually just lead to a longer queue, and you still get the baddies you have now. I believe that the ELO is based on win/loss, and having a K/D would just lead to the all-carry teams who lose and complain about their tank with a 0/3/19 score because he has no kills.

Listen, I think having a win/loss thing would actually just lead to a longer queue, and you still get the baddies you have now. I believe that the ELO is based on win/loss, and having a K/D would just lead to the all-carry teams who lose and complain about their tank with a 0/3/19 score because he has no kills.

I'm going to break that down.

Listen, I think having a win/loss thing would actually just lead to a longer queue
Yes, that's the point. Did you really read the post?
you still get the baddies you have now
Even after a sufficient number of games played? Sure, people have bad games, but it wouldn't be as consistent as it is now.

ELO is based on win/loss
Normal games have a hidden ELO already, but seems balance the players differently. If you've played normal games, you would know this.

nd having a K/D would just lead to the all-carry teams who lose and complain about their tank with a 0/3/19 score because he has no kills
Would they? If people who all want to win and are of similar skill play together, they would create a more balanced team. Make it K/D/A. I said in the post the metric can be anything constructive. Problem solved.

I think what's trying to be stated here is that regardless of how the matchmaking is currently done, what metrics are used to determine the match, and what the history is of all three participants, the outcome seems to be generally the same. The average skill level of the purple team may be the average skill level of the blue team, but the standard deviation of the skill level of the purple team and the blue team are not necessarily the same or even close.

The reason for using the ELO rating system ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system ) is because of it's vast popularity, however it was originally intended for TWO player games, hence the problem that's being stated. The two ratings being taken into account are the purple team and the blue team. The individual players it seems can be far far far worse than their team mates or the opposing team.

I frequently have the exact same problem Lollipopsaurus is describing. Partied or solo, one person seems to love face check bushes, push lanes to the turret and tank them while all enemies are missing, or 2v1 enemy champs that are several levels higher than them, completely ignoring everything that is said to them, any pings, calls of mia, etc, until they basically ragequit.

There are reporting measures, but are they working? It seems that approach is a 'fix it later' solution that doesn't really do anything in the meantime to curtail this problem. Why not pair people with similar win/loss and k/d on the same teams, and THEN match teams? I would much rather sit waiting for 5 minutes for a match than get into a match in less than 10 seconds that I'll have to surrender at 15 minutes.

i'm also sick & tired of being stuck with lvl 30's while i'm only lvl 21. what if they put people together that are close to the same lvl & also in the same country? do you think that would solve the problem?

The problem is that I think it doesn't take into account the team composition, only the aggregate. People make parties on purpose to 'boost' their team mates, one level 30 and two level 20's, averaging to 23 ([20+20+30]/3 = 23.333). So while there are four teams with the average level of 23, two of which have all players level 23, and the other two having a 'boost' composition as explained above, the system will only put the teams together in the order they came in if their average level and k/d ratio is similar.

In short, part of the problem, but also imo, not the biggest problem. The level of your champion determines how many quintessences you have, and how many runes/champions you have. It doesn't make your champion stronger or weaker inherently. Is there a correlation to level and skill? Undoubtedly. Should k/d and their individual ELO score take care of it mostly? Yes, but why not include level in this anyway? It can't hurt.